Jack English vs. Greg Harney: Round Three Set in Court of Appeal for May 28, 2015

Jack English

Jack English (shown in photo on right) continues his dogged fight against the big billing mega bucks Victoria based lawyer Gregory Harney, at the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the showdown is now tentatively set for May 28, 2015 in Vancouver at 10 A.M.

Investigators suspect that Harney was operating in cahoots with agents of British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (BCIMC) to undermine and sabotage his own client - a dirty trick that is not uncommon among some lawyers in British Columbia that has developed an international reputation for white collar crime.  BCIMC was the direct beneficiary of the criminal conspiracy carried out against the English family property near Tofino, British Columbia.

Mr. English is confident that if he gets a clean panel of judges, i.e. not corrupt, they will follow the binding legal precedents previously set by the Court of Appeal when it adopted the statement of Lord Denning in Griffiths v. Evans, (1953) 2 All E.R. 1364 at 1369.

 



Greg Harney

“On this question of retainer, I would observe that where there is a  difference between a solicitor and his client, the courts have said for the last hundred years or more that the word of the client is to be preferred  to the word of the solicitor, or at any rate more weight is to be given to it....

 

The reason is plain.  It is because the client is ignorant and the solicitor is or should be learned.  If the solicitor does not take the precaution of getting a written retainer, he has only himself to thank for being at variance with his client over it and must take the consequences.”

 

Griffith v Evans has been followed in the British Columbia courts in the following cases, Bull Housser & Tupper v. Williams, 1998 CanLII 1783 (BC SC), Davis & Co. v. Jiwan 2007 BCSC 1775 (CanLii),  MacAulay v. O'Neill, 2002 BCSC 1699 (CanLII),  Mansfield v. Hawkins, 2002 BCSC 1723 (CanLII) Redekop Law Corporation v. Grau et al, 2004 BCSC 569 (CanLII) Scott v. Tseuoa, 2002 BCSC 1779 (CanLII), Waldock v. Bissett and (1992) 1992 CanLII 1002 (BC CA), and Walker v. Enayati, 1997 CanLII 967 (BC SC).

Both Master Peter Kieghly and Justice Keith Bracken failed to follow the law when they ruled against Mr. English and granted Greg Harney a $200,000 plus fee for a couple of days in court on a relatively uncomplicated foreclosure case after Greg Harney initially tried to force his client to approve $1.12 million bill and then sent his client a bill for $556,000 and attempted to use a special court procedure that the lawyers in British Columbia have devised to get their massive unjustifiable bills approved by fellow Law Society members who are nominated to be Masters of the Court by a highly suspect and corrupt process. 

Legal observers say Mr. Harney should have kept his agreement with Mr. English and if there was no agreement the bill should have been less than the $10,000 that Mr. English had paid upfront.

Additional research shows that both Master Peter Kieghly and Justice Keith Bracken should not have been on the case and had financial conflicts of interest due to the fact that their pension plans are managed by BCIMC that has an interest in financially destroying Jack English and burying him under massive legal bills.

Master Peter Kieghly who was appointed to his position by the notorious Premier Gordon Campbell has a reputation for devious dealing and first came to the attention of the Editors as a result of his role in the gang of thugs connected to British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell attacked and destroyed Karl Eisbrenner, an innocent man who was doing his job, as a lawyer, to defend the helpless, the weak and the old.

Click here to read more about Karl Eisbrenner and Peter Kieghly